Sobering Historical Facts About American "Socialism"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by - August 1, 2004

(Notice that the highest peace time spending took place under Reagan and Bush Sr.)

Guess what? While the American government was giving aid to millions of families during the 1950s and 1960s with taxes raised almost exclusively from the wealthy through a highly graduated income tax, do you know what happened?

The large American middle class was born for the first time in American history.

Do you understand that the most "socialistic" (as you describe it) time in American history was the 1950s? By the 1960s much aid was being given to minority families as well, and guess what? The programs do largely work.

(Notice the decrease in poverty rates under Democratic Presidents and rises under Republican)

Boy, America must be some kind of "evil" place, just imagine: wealthy people (who have acquired their fortunes by making profits from the work of other people or from simply owning claim to natural resources, such a oil (which wasn't made or produced by that person and which that person may have never even labored to acquire or bring to market)) in America (where the "poor", "oppressed", rich people paid high taxes during the 1950s and 1960s to help to build the most stable middle class in American history) are FORCED to pay for the maintenance of the social infrastructure that has enabled them to acquire their fortunes! Oh the outrage!!

(Prior to 1941 virtually all income taxes were paid by the wealthiest 5% of Americans)

Keep in mind that during the 1950s virtually all of the wealthy were white people so make sure that in the future you point out that in reality it was not the poor blacks, who were excluded from politics, employment and education during the 50s, but rather the POOR RICH WHITE MEN, who were sadly oppressed by the 98% tax bracket who really suffered.

Forget the fact that some people are born (or should I say placed by God) into wealthy families with every advantage and some people are born (or should I say placed by God) into poverty, without proper medical care, without proper nutrition, without the type of environment that leads to a healthy and productive development.

Let's just forget that for a second, because after all, this MUST be all part of "God's plan", and "Lord knows" that "just because you are born poor doesn't mean you don't have all the exact same opportunities that a rich baby has", or perhaps you can say, "being rich has its own problems and challenges as well".

But let's just forget that, because we all know that just because you can't choose your parents, "God" is doing it for you, and when he chooses to give the blessing of motherhood to a poor single mother, regardless of how bad or irresponsible the parents may or may not be, the child has every equal opportunity to be successful just like the rest of us. The last thing that a child born into poverty needs is the big bad EVIL government coming along and trying to feed it or make sure that it has a place to live as opposed to living on the streets or pay for special school programs to try and makeup for the lack of quality care that it gets at home, THAT is just down right EVIL. Only Satan could conjure up such hideousness!

So as I said, let's forget that whole aspect of it altogether and just look purely at the economics of the situation and what this private property business is all about.

Let's just go ahead and "imagine" how great our country would be without these evil programs (that helped to build the American middle class).

In order to imagine America without these programs we can simply look at America before the programs (sort of).

The "evil" of Social Security for example:

Before this evil program was implemented there was a growing number of elderly going homeless, committing suicide, and dying of starvation in America. The true evil of this program is that it interfered with "God's plan", which is to weed out the weak and the sick to keep the pack lean and productive correct? Or was that part of Darwin's theory about evolution, I forget?

Now I have to wonder, what was society like BEFORE the advent of modern capitalism and the Industrial Revolution?

Well, if you take the older communal societies, (naturally socialistic that is) people would live with their families, often in shared communal neighborhoods. The community would pitch in to help care for and feed the elderly and people often lived with their parents their whole lives or at least brought their parents back into their homes when they were too old to care for themselves.

Even going more primitive, in tribal cultures the young productive members of society would WORK to create extra resources, such as food, that were then brought home to GIVE to the elderly. Hmm... this is starting to stink of socialism!

Well, let's look at Social Security today, we have the younger members of society working and some of that labor produces resources that are given the elderly to care for them. Boy that's evil. After all, the young folks don't owe anything to the elderly do they? Hell, they just came before and helped to build his great nation of ours and make the lives of the young possible. It's EVIL to think that the young, whose lives are only made possible by the hard work of those who came before them, should help to care for the elderly. That's just down right Satanic!

But wait, there's more, we still haven't fully imagined America without aid for the poor and the elderly.

Let's see, without these programs we could expect things to be similar to the way they were in the 1930s before their implementation, could we not? Actually it would be worse because in the 1920s and 30s about 25% - 30% of Americans were farmers. Now only about 1% of Americans are farmers, which means that only about 1% of Americans could be self-sufficient (probably less since most farms today are factory farms, not family farms).

Of course, capitalism and industrialization are the reasons why Americans as individuals can no longer be self sufficient like they used to be. So, let's imagine a modern America without welfare and Social Security.

Well, you can bet that crime would increase massively (real crime that is, not the fake so-called crime of taxation, but actual muggings, armed robbery, extortion, sales of drugs, prostitution, etc). The number of homeless would go up; that surely wouldn't be good for business would it? And this seems to be where most conservatives get confused, because you fail to recognize that the Welfare State is a product of capitalist society and that the purpose of the Welfare State is to benefit the wealthy by controlling the poor by keeping them placated instead of revolutionary like they were in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century.

I may be figuring this whole thing out though. You see the number of people in prison in America has exploded over the past 20 years, and of course the majority of those behind bars are black Americans. In some states people permanently lose their right to vote after having been convicted of a federal crime. America now has the highest prison population in the world and it's still growing. If funding for programs such as Social Security and Welfare programs were removed the American Prison-Industrial Complex could continue to expand at a rapid rate, producing vast profits for the growing privately-owned prison systems (which still require taxes to fund), a business that makes billions of dollars a year. By the way, I'm sure you know that lobbyists for private prison corporations also lobby law makers for harsher penalties and longer sentences, but of course that's just good business. It is the American way right?

13% of adult African American males have permanently lost their right to vote due to laws that prevent people with federal convictions from voting.

But hey, the way that the prison system has been ramping up lately I'm sure it can take a few million more inmates. After all that might help reduce the "unemployment rate".

If you could just eliminate all this "evil" "redistribution of wealth" (because after all, redistribution of wealth from the working class to the wealthy through ownership of rights to value created by workers is God's will, right?) you can help to bring class warfare to a point and bring America closer to a new revolution.

[dalegg 143]

So during the election campaign it was all about how calling Obama a socialist was ridiculous. Now its about explaining why socialism is a good thing? Okay Fidel...which way do you want it?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Where's the link?

Also, you haven't been attending the C4C morning meetings lately. Yours and Six's name came up, by the way.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So during the election campaign it was all about how calling Obama a socialist was ridiculous. Now its about explaining why socialism is a good thing? Okay Fidel...which way do you want it?

lol...I didn't write that, but the author makes some good points about what I think some here label as Socialism. There is nothing even remotely close to American style socialism (Social Security, Medicare) to anything of the former Soviet Union, which is the old enemy that so many Right Wingers wish they could bring back from the dead and parade on the streets with, in hopes of scaring old ladies living on pension that that black man in the White House is going to take away her Medicare.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Those that scream Socialism these days either have no clue what Socialism is or they just like to be hysterical. Or perhaps it's a bit of both.

A more proper terminology would be Social Market Economy.

Under the Nazi regime [Ludwig] Erhard maintained a low profile, continuing his work in the consumer sector, but in 1944 he wrote a memo on war financing and debt consolidation which began with the assumption that Germany would lose the war. This memo was passed by the German resistance to the Allies. From that point forward, Erhard was seen as a reliable participant in the postwar effort to rebuild a democratic Germany. In 1947 he was appointed director of the Economic Council for the joint Anglo-U.S. occupation zone.

That he was his own man was proved, however, when he defied allied supreme commander Gen. Lucius Clay in the darkest days of the postwar economic crisis. He abolished price controls at the same moment the Allies introduced a new German currency. This decision, considered by many a disastrous mistake, became instead the foundation of Germany's economic rebirth. The black market disappeared, shortages ended, inflation halted, and the population's strong commercial instincts took hold once again.

In the years ahead, Erhard's decisiveness and conviction that markets could work even in so dark an hour, would provide inspiration to many politicians and economists caught in similar crises in other countries.

In 1949 the Federal Republic of (West) Germany was established, and Erhard joined the Christian Democratic Party. He advocated the views of an economic group known as the Ordoliberals. Opposing a planned economy, the Ordoliberals envisioned what they called a social market economy, combining open market competition with a strong central bank and a social safety net to protect the disadvantaged.

With the Christian Democrats' victory, Konrad Adenauer became chancellor and Erhard was appointed economics minister. For the succeeding 14 years he shepherded the new West German economy through a recovery that outpaced the growth of the European countries that had won the war.

Source

Edited August 7, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[HAL 9000 96]

Now guys why let rational thinking get in the way of a little hysteria? Eventually all of us will catch it too.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now guys why let rational thinking get in the way of a little hysteria?

My bad.

[mawilson 2,133]

I've taken the liberty of updating your chart, Steven:

[mRx 16]

Those that scream Socialism these days either have no clue what Socialism is or they just like to be hysterical. Or perhaps it's a bit of both.

A more proper terminology would be Social Market Economy.

Under the Nazi regime [Ludwig] Erhard maintained a low profile, continuing his work in the consumer sector, but in 1944 he wrote a memo on war financing and debt consolidation which began with the assumption that Germany would lose the war. This memo was passed by the German resistance to the Allies. From that point forward, Erhard was seen as a reliable participant in the postwar effort to rebuild a democratic Germany. In 1947 he was appointed director of the Economic Council for the joint Anglo-U.S. occupation zone.

That he was his own man was proved, however, when he defied allied supreme commander Gen. Lucius Clay in the darkest days of the postwar economic crisis. He abolished price controls at the same moment the Allies introduced a new German currency. This decision, considered by many a disastrous mistake, became instead the foundation of Germany's economic rebirth. The black market disappeared, shortages ended, inflation halted, and the population's strong commercial instincts took hold once again.

In the years ahead, Erhard's decisiveness and conviction that markets could work even in so dark an hour, would provide inspiration to many politicians and economists caught in similar crises in other countries.

In 1949 the Federal Republic of (West) Germany was established, and Erhard joined the Christian Democratic Party. He advocated the views of an economic group known as the Ordoliberals. Opposing a planned economy, the Ordoliberals envisioned what they called a social market economy, combining open market competition with a strong central bank and a social safety net to protect the disadvantaged.

With the Christian Democrats' victory, Konrad Adenauer became chancellor and Erhard was appointed economics minister. For the succeeding 14 years he shepherded the new West German economy through a recovery that outpaced the growth of the European countries that had won the war.

Source

Hmm, I'm not familiar with Erhard, but reading up on him, I find it interesting that he once said to the economics Nobel laurette Friedrich August von Hayek that: "the free market economy did not need to be made social but was social in its origin." Which, begs the question-- If the free market is inherently social, and serves mankind, why in the world would coercive restrictions need be imposed on such social progression?

[HAL 9000 96]

Probably something along the lines that social thought progresses as much as sociopolitical hierarchies progress in their permissiveness of change throughout different societies in order to effect positive changes for more than just the upper echelons of human power structures.

Every now and then flukes occur within this system that allow these power structures to fail enough so that more and more people in these societies can access power (via wealth) more realistically.

[mawilson 2,133]

I've taken the liberty of updating your chart, Steven:

No comment, eh?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Those that scream Socialism these days either have no clue what Socialism is or they just like to be hysterical. Or perhaps it's a bit of both.

A more proper terminology would be Social Market Economy.

Under the Nazi regime [Ludwig] Erhard maintained a low profile, continuing his work in the consumer sector, but in 1944 he wrote a memo on war financing and debt consolidation which began with the assumption that Germany would lose the war. This memo was passed by the German resistance to the Allies. From that point forward, Erhard was seen as a reliable participant in the postwar effort to rebuild a democratic Germany. In 1947 he was appointed director of the Economic Council for the joint Anglo-U.S. occupation zone.

That he was his own man was proved, however, when he defied allied supreme commander Gen. Lucius Clay in the darkest days of the postwar economic crisis. He abolished price controls at the same moment the Allies introduced a new German currency. This decision, considered by many a disastrous mistake, became instead the foundation of Germany's economic rebirth. The black market disappeared, shortages ended, inflation halted, and the population's strong commercial instincts took hold once again.

In the years ahead, Erhard's decisiveness and conviction that markets could work even in so dark an hour, would provide inspiration to many politicians and economists caught in similar crises in other countries.

In 1949 the Federal Republic of (West) Germany was established, and Erhard joined the Christian Democratic Party. He advocated the views of an economic group known as the Ordoliberals. Opposing a planned economy, the Ordoliberals envisioned what they called a social market economy, combining open market competition with a strong central bank and a social safety net to protect the disadvantaged.

With the Christian Democrats' victory, Konrad Adenauer became chancellor and Erhard was appointed economics minister. For the succeeding 14 years he shepherded the new West German economy through a recovery that outpaced the growth of the European countries that had won the war.

Source

Hmm, I'm not familiar with Erhard, but reading up on him, I find it interesting that he once said to the economics Nobel laurette Friedrich August von Hayek that: "the free market economy did not need to be made social but was social in its origin." Which, begs the question-- If the free market is inherently social, and serves mankind, why in the world would coercive restrictions need be imposed on such social progression?

I'm afraid you'll have to dig a bit deeper than wikipedia.

[mawilson 2,133]

I've taken the liberty of updating your chart, Steven:

No comment, eh?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I've taken the liberty of updating your chart, Steven:

No comment, eh?

What comment are you looking for? Want me to spell out the obvious observation that the GOP and Bush did an impressive job reversing the federal spending trend?

[mawilson 2,133]

I've taken the liberty of updating your chart, Steven:

No comment, eh?

What comment are you looking for? Want me to spell out the obvious observation that the GOP and Bush did an impressive job reversing the federal spending trend?

And Obama doing an even more impressive job continuing that trend?